A proposal to build an all-weather training pitch on protected open space at a park in Clacton has been refused by planning councillors.
FC Clacton’s Community Benefit Society submitted a planning application to create an artificial grass pitch on land owned by Tendring District Council (TDC), next to the football club’s stadium at Rush Green Recreation Ground.
The proposal for development on the land, which is officially designated as Safeguarded Open Space as part of the district’s Local Plan, included a 4.5-metre-high fence with landscaping around the pitch and four 12-metre-high floodlights.
The use of the facility would have been exclusively for FC Clacton members and other potential sport users and would have removed the area of land from general recreational open space use by the wider public.
A report said that the proposal, which was supported by Sports England, would bring benefits to FC Clacton and its members, making the club more agile in respect of its offer.
A representative of the football club and the local ward councillor spoke in favour of the proposal, indicating that the development would deliver a much-needed facility.
But development in the location proposed would have also led to the loss of the safeguarded open space and some visual harm due to the fencing and floodlighting. A letter of objection also raised concerns that the plans would limit dog walking areas.
Following questions and a debate, TDC’s Planning Committee unanimously refused the application at a meeting on Tuesday, 5 November.
Maria Fowler, Chairman of TDC’s Planning Committee, said: “All-weather pitches are marvellous and this would no doubt have been a well-used facility.
“But this would have prevented the general public from using what is public open space – a space that is protected by the district’s Local Plan.
“Although the Planning Committee can make decisions that depart from policies in the Local Plan where there is good reason to do so, on this occasion councillors concluded that the loss of safeguarded open space outweighed the benefits of the scheme.”
